2015 Waiting Lists Survey (2)

2015 WAITING LISTS SURVEYONPHA’S REPORT ON WAITING LISTS STATISTICS FOR ONTARIO

ONPHA IS THE VOICE OF NON-PROFIT HOUSING IN ONTARIOWHO WE AREOur 760 housing member organizations manage more than 163,000 non-profit housing units in more than 220 communities in Ontario. They provide affordable homes to a diverse range of tenants, including: seniors; low-income families with children; Aboriginal people; the working poor; victims of violence and abuse; people living with developmental disabilities, mental illness, addictions, and HIV/AIDS; and the formerly homeless and hard-to-house.

For more than 25 years, ONPHA has been an independent, member-funded and member directed association. Our member focus makes us a strong advocate for non-profit housing providers and the communities they serve.

WHAT WE DOWe unite Ontario’s non-profit housing sector and provide non-profit housing providers with the knowledge and resources they need to conduct their business efficiently and ensure that their housing is well-managed, safe, and affordable. We do this through education, policy and research, management advice, networking opportunities, communications, and bulk procurement opportunities. We also work closely with all levels of government to promote sustainable, community-based affordable housing and to represent the interests of our members.

WHY WE DO ITMore than 400,000 people in Ontario rely on community-based affordable housing. Many need support to maintain their housing and live more independent lives. Studies prove that affordable housing is an essential determinant of health and a key contributor to the vitality of Ontario communities.

We believe that all Ontarians need a secure place to call home at a cost they can afford. We know that good housing is the foundation for better lives and healthier communities. Our role is to strengthen this foundation.

HOUSING - Who Does What?In Ontario, 47 consolidated municipal service managers (“service managers”) across the province are responsible for delivering rent-geared-to-income housing and other programs, and managing housing waiting lists. In 2014, service managers pioneered new and innovative programs designed to reduce the number of households on their waiting lists and assist households while they wait.

The provincial government provides the policy framework for housing, and funds housing and homelessness services through the Investment in Affordable Housing (IAH) Program and the Community Homelessness Prevention Initiative.

The federal government provides time-limited funding for housing and homelessness services through IAH and the Homelessness Partnering Strategy. However, the federal government is increasingly withdrawing from social housing – dropping from funding contributions of approximately $500 million per year to $0 by the year 2033.

BY THE NUMBERS

INTRODUCTION

An affordable home is essential for success

ONTARIO WAITING LISTS: EVEN LONGER IN 2014

Seniors face longer wait times

More families have joined the list

Single adults and couples wait longest

Unit shortage means longer waits for people with disabilities

Even “priority” applicants face delays

Waiting list movement has stalled

Service managers are working to help residents in their communities

CONCLUSION

APPENDIX A: Methodology

APPENDIX B: Glossary of Terms

APPENDIX C: Service Manager level data

APPENDIX D: Map of wait times across Ontario

5

6

8

16

17

20

22

30

TABLE OF CONTENTS

168,711Ontario families, seniors, single adults and couples were on waiting lists for

rent-geared-to-income housing in 2014.

BY THE NUMBERS

+3,642 more Ontario households were waiting for RGI housing in 2014 than in 2013.

2.2%more seniors, families, singles and couples waiting for RGI housing in

2014 than in 2013.

3.2%of Ontario households

are waiting for RGI housing assistance.

3.83 yearsApplicants who were housed in 2014 had waited an average of 3.83 years

for RGI housing.

70%more RGI units are needed in Ontario

to house all of the applicants on waiting lists.

30%of households on waiting lists include seniors. In the last ten years, the proportion of seniors on waiting lists has gone up 8 per cent.

62015 WAITING LISTS SURVEY

INTRODUCTION

When Ontarians live in safe and affordable homes, children perform better in school, families are healthier, and employees are more productive. An affordable home is the foundation that each of us needs to reach our full potential.

But for too many Ontarians, an affordable home and the stability and security that it offers, is out of reach. More than 168,000 households are waiting for a home that’s affordable enough to leave money for groceries and winter boots once the rent is paid. The majority of these households will never get the affordable home that they’re waiting for – their application will be cancelled or they will give up, frustrated by the lengthy wait.

The Government of Ontario knows the importance of an affordable home. In their 2014 Poverty Reduction Strategy, the Province chose to take action on unaffordable housing because, in their words, “a person without a home is unable to get out of poverty.” While the Strategy’s commitments are laudable, they are impossible to achieve without adequate levels of funding.

For nearly all Ontario families, housing is their single largest cost. Housing costs have risen quickly in recent years, and many Ontarians are living in homes they are struggling to afford.

Nearly half of all Ontario renters and close to a third of all homeowners are spending more than they can afford on housing, placing themselves and their families at risk of homelessness.

Low vacancy rates and rising rents in the private rental market mean that people living in rent-geared-to-income housing are staying there longer. There’s simply nowhere else that they can afford to go. As a result, each year fewer households move into the homes they have been waiting for, and the wait time for new applicants gets even longer. In 2014, almost 1,000 fewer households moved into rent-geared-to-income housing than three years before.

Over the past decade, the federal and provincial governments have invested in housing1, but this level of investment is insufficient. While the Poverty Reduction Strategy notes that the Province has committed over $4 billion in funding for

» An affordable home is essential for success.

1. See the Canada-Ontario-Affordable Housing Program (AHP) and the current Investment in Affordable Housing (IAH) Program.

In Ontario, local governments are responsible for housing, and they’re working hard to meet the growing demand [...] but they need more support from the provincial and federal governments to solve the province’s housing crisis.

7 ONPHA

affordable housing since 2003, Ontario waiting lists increased by over 40,000 households in the same time period2.

In Ontario, local governments are responsible for housing, and they’re working hard to meet the growing demand. Many of them have developed new and innovative ways of increasing the availability of affordable housing in their communities and helping housing applicants. Their hard work is making a significant difference for some of the tens of thousands of households on Ontario’s waiting lists, but they need more support from the provincial and federal governments to solve the province’s housing crisis.

Investing in affordable housing is smart economic policy. In the Poverty Reduction Strategy, the Province acknowledges that housing investments yield long-term savings in healthcare and help people find, and keep, jobs3. The recent

economic impact study of Toronto Community Housing demonstrated that federal and provincial government investment in the organization’s aging stock would add $18 million in GDP and generate $4.5 billion in tax revenue, while creating 200,000 employment years4. With the federal government focusing on job creation as its number one priority5, it is time all senior levels of government commit to dedicated, long-term funding that builds up communities, enhances

competitiveness, and stimulates economic growth.

For the last four years, Ontario’s waiting lists have maintained a 1:2:3 ratio: for every one household housed from the waiting list, two applications for housing are cancelled, and three new applications

are received. The result is thousands of families, seniors, and individuals who continue to struggle to keep a roof over their head, and who may never have the opportunity to realize their full potential.

While the Poverty Reduction Strategy notes that the Province has committed over $4 billion in funding for affordable housing since 2003, Ontario waiting lists increased by over 40,000 households in the same time period.

2. In 2014, ONPHA produced a report to assess how much it would cost for Ontario to address its most pressing housing challenges in the next decade. The Big Problems Need Bold Solutions Report found that a provincial commitment of $1.3 billion per year – or $13 billion over the 10-year period – is required to assist all households living in Persistent Core Housing Need (meaning living in housing that is too small, too expensive, or in need of significant repair for three consistent years) and homelessness, and to repair the existing social housing stock. It is important to note that this funding commitment would amount to roughly 1 per cent of the Province’s annual budget (based on 2013-2014 expenditures).

3. In the Poverty Reduction Strategy (2014), the Province notes: “Investments in housing can mean savings down the road because people are healthier, more ready for employment, and participating in the community.”

4. Over a 30-year time period. Canadian Centre for Economic Analysis, Socio-Economic Analysis: Value of Toronto Community Housing’s 10 Year Capital Investment Plan and Revitalization (March 2015).

5. Economic Action Plan 2014: Budget Speech, “The Road to Balance: Creating Jobs and Opportunities” (2014).

100,000

126

,103

124

,78

5

122,

426

121,7

26

124

,032

129

,253

141,6

35

152,

077

156

,358

158

,44

5

165,

06

9

168

,711

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Number of Active Households on Waiting Lists, as of December 31st, 2003 to 2014

-1.0%-1.9% -0.6% +1.9%

+4.2%

+9.6%

+7.4%+2.8% +1.3%

+4.2%+2.2%


In 2014, 168,711 households were waiting for RGI housing in Ontario – a 2.2 per cent increase from 20139. For the second year in a row, the average wait time for chronological (non-priority) households was just shy of four years10.

It is important to note that waiting lists for RGI housing are only one measure of the need for affordable housing in Ontario. They contain only the households that know RGI housing is available, have chosen to apply, and maintain an active application. As a result, the number of households on waiting lists for RGI housing significantly underestimates the need for affordable housing in the province11.

For the past 11 years, the Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association (ONPHA) has tracked the number of households waiting for rent-geared-to-income (RGI) housing6 in Ontario7. This report summarizes the activity that took place on Ontario’s housing waiting lists in 20148.

In this year’s report, we also share the experiences of people who have waited, or are currently waiting for affordable housing. We spoke directly with Ontarians who shared their stories to help show the difference that an affordable home makes.

ONTARIO WAITING LISTS: EVEN LONGER IN 2014

168,711 households were waiting for RGI housing in Ontario – a 2.2 per cent increase from 2013. For the second year in a row, the average wait time was just shy of four years.

6. Rent-geared-to-income (RGI) housing assistance refers to the financial assistance received by households that enables them to pay rent based on 30 per cent of their gross income. RGI housing is provided by non-profit housing providers and co-operative housing corporations, and through rent supplements, which subsidize market rents in non-profit and co-operative housing corporations, and units in the private rental market.

7. This information is gathered from the 47 consolidated municipal service managers (“service managers”) located across Ontario. 8. Waiting list data is extracted for the period beginning on January 1, 2014 and concluding on December 31, 2014. 9. This number represents applicants recorded in a service manager’s database as “eligible,” “active,” or “on offer.” 2014 data is based on responses

from 43 of the 47 service managers, with substitutions used for the Kenora District Services Board, the District Municipality of Muskoka, the City of Ottawa, and the County of Oxford (their 2013 figures were inflated based on the province-wide rate of waiting list growth from 2013 to 2014, with the exception of the County of Oxford, whose 2014 figures were based on figures published by the County in November 2013).

10. The average wait time for all chronological households housed in 2014 was 3.83 years. This is a slight decrease from 3.89 years in 2013, and an increase from 3.2 years in 2012.

Proportion (%) of Total Active Households by Household Type, 2014

Single adults and

couples37%

Families32%

Seniors30%

Due to rounding, percentages don’t add up to 100.

9 ONPHA

» Seniors face longer wait timesIn 2014, 50,295 senior households12 were waiting for RGI housing in Ontario. This is 766 more households than in 2013. Seniors also faced the second-longest wait time of all household groups – an average of 3.55 years13.

While the eligible age for seniors’ only housing varies by area, it is clear that demand for housing

11. The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) reported that the number of households in core housing need in Ontario in 2011 – meaning living in housing that was too small for their family size, too expensive, or in need of major repair – was 616,935 households, amounting to 13.4 per cent of all households in the province. CMHC, “Households in Core Housing Need, Canada, Provinces, Territories, and Metropolitan Areas, 1991-2011” Canadian Housing Observer (2014).

12. While service managers have different age requirements for seniors’ only housing that ranges from 50 to 65 years of age depending on the area, in this year’s Survey they were asked to define senior applicants as those who applied for housing and were 65 years of age or older.

13. This wait time and those described below are weighted averages. The 2014 waiting times are based on responses from 43 of 47 service managers, with substitutions (based on 2013 figures) used for the City of Ottawa. The wait times do not include information from the Kenora District Services Board, the County of Oxford and the District Municipality of Muskoka due to incomplete information.

14. In 2013 the number of seniors age 65 and over in Ontario was 2.1 million; by 2041 it is estimated to be over 4.5 million, or 25.5 per cent of the provincial population. Ontario Ministry of Finance, Ontario Population Projections (Fall 2014).

15. All the names that appear in this report have been changed to protect the identity of the interviewees. [Interviews were conducted by ONPHA staff in February and March 2015.]

21% 22% 23% 25% 26% 22%30%

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Proportion of Seniors on Waiting Lists, 2003 to 2014

24%22% 24%24%30%

for aging Ontarians is high, and rising. Ten years ago, senior households were 22 per cent of all households on waiting lists; they now account for approximately 30 per cent. As the number of adults age 65 and over in Ontario is projected to more than double over the next few decades14, the housing needs of this aging population are increasingly critical.

Jim’s Story

After 15 years spent living in a rooming house above a bar in North Bay, Jim15 learned about the housing waiting list. He was in his sixties. With the help of a community agency, he applied for a unit in a seniors’ building, and spent two years on the waiting list. In May of 2014, Jim moved into his new home at Golden Age Towers, a community operated by Nipissing District Housing Corporation.

Jim previously struggled with alcoholism and mental health challenges, but since moving into his own apartment has quit drinking and lost 50 pounds. He is happy and grateful to all the people who have assisted him along the way. “Living here is fantastic,” Jim says. “I have independence. I go to bed at 9 o’clock every night, and I have a clean bill of health. Everything is going good.”


The number of families16 waiting for RGI housing increased by two per cent in 2014. As a result, 1,024 more families were waiting in 2014, for a total of 54,302. Meanwhile, the average wait time for families dropped, from 4.14 years in 2013 to 3.51 years in 2014.

Much of the decrease in wait times for families can be attributed to one service manager: the Regional Municipality of Peel. In 2013, families in Peel faced an average wait time of 9.7 years – the longest in Ontario. Through their Choice-Based Rental Options Program, Peel created additional rent subsidies for households on the waiting list that can be used in the private rental market17. In 2014, average wait times for families in Peel dropped by four years, to an average of 5.7 years.

In 2014, 32 per cent of all households on waiting lists were families. While more families were housed in 2014 than any other household type18,

» More families have joined the listfamilies comprise 36 per cent of all new waiting list applicants in Ontario.

When children grow up without access to a safe and secure home, it has a strong effect on their health and cognitive development. The Regional

Municipality of Waterloo has responded to the rising number of families using emergency shelters by developing a new program: Families in Transition (FIT).

In the FIT program, when families contact a shelter, they are directed to a centralized intake system where their needs are assessed. FIT staff work with the family to help them retain their housing or find new housing quickly. Through the Rapid Rehousing and Prevention Fund, FIT staff provide families with financial help to meet basic needs or to pay for last month’s rent deposits, late utility payments, or pest control treatment. FIT staff offer other types of help as well, such as negotiating with landlords, budgeting assistance, and helping families find new homes.

16. “Families” is a proxy for households that have applied for units with multiple bedrooms, as unit size guidelines restrict adult single and couples to bachelor and 1-bedroom units.

17. This year, the Region of Peel expanded their Rent Supplement program to include a “mini rent up bidding” pilot. Peel partnered with private sector landlords who have a large number of affordable units available, and then established a “mini rent-up day” wherein households on the waiting list can tour the units if interested. Peel staff arrived on-site and take responsibility for showing the vacant units, processing income verification forms, and managing the bidding process. Households from the waiting list rated the units based on their preferences, and the units were allocated based on interested households’ application date.

18. Families accounted for 43 per cent of households housed in 2014, compared to 23 per cent (seniors) and 31 per cent (single adults and couples).

Poonam’s Story

Poonam* is a young single mother living in Windsor-Essex. Poonam had been living with her toddler and her mother in a 2-bedroom apartment, but when she learned she was expecting a second child she realized she would have to move. Poonam’s only source of income is the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP). After looking for a place to live in the private market, Poonam realized that she could not afford both food and rent, and would have to rely on food banks and other emergency services for her family’s basic needs.

At the same time, Poonam learned about the waiting list for RGI housing. After nearly a year of waiting, Poonam moved into an affordable home with her two children. For the first time since her children were born, Poonam has her own bedroom, and the children have a yard in which to play.

In 2014, average wait times for families in Peel dropped by four years, to an average of 5.7 years.

11 ONPHA

In its pilot, 70 per cent of the families that participated in FIT avoided a shelter stay all together19. For those that did use an emergency shelter, the majority found new, permanent housing within two weeks. The FIT program also helped to save the Region of Waterloo money – costing an average of $1,200 per family instead of $4,150 for a family shelter stay.

In 2014, more than 2,000 single adults and couples20 joined the waiting list, bringing the total to 62,533. At an over three per cent increase, more single adults and couples joined waiting lists in 2014 than any other household type.

Single adults and couples also waited the longest for housing – an average of 3.98 years. In five regions, average wait times for single adults and couples were more than five years21 and, in the Regional Municipality of Niagara, as long as nine years.

In 2014, single adults and couples accounted for 41 per cent of all new applicants, but only 31 per cent of the households that moved into RGI housing.

» Single adults and couples wait longest

Trevor’s Story

Trevor* is a 34-year-old youth worker living in Toronto. He has been on the waiting list for RGI housing for more than 8 years. As a single adult with no children, he is part of the largest group of applicants on waiting lists in Ontario – and faces the longest wait.

Although Trevor has a good job, he has struggled to afford private market rents and is currently living with his mother in a small apartment. Though Trevor is frustrated by his situation, he recognizes that it’s not unique. ”I know plenty of people who have been on the waiting list, and they’ve been on it for the longest time,” he says.

“I’m a single man, and I work – if it’s this hard for me, I can only imagine how hard it is for everyone else.”

19. Lutherwood Housing Services, “Families in Transition Pilot 2013/2014: Evaluation Report,” Prepared for: Region of Waterloo, Housing Services (2014). 20. “Single adults and couples” refers to non-senior single adults and couples whose households do not include children. 21. The Regional Municipality of Durham, the County of Hastings, the Regional Municipality of Peel, the City of Toronto, the Regional Municipality of York.

The City of Ottawa did not provide this data for the 2014 year.

Average Waiting Time in Years by Household Type, 2014

2013

2014

3.72

3.55

2013

2014

4.14

3.51

2013

2014

3.72

3.98

2

Single Adults & Couples

Families

Seniors


Some senior, family, and single adult and couple households are waiting for homes that have been modified for people living with disabilities. These units, called “modified units,” are in short supply and, as a result, applicants for them face longer-than-average wait times in many communities. In 2014, 1,741 applicant households were waiting for a modified unit — up from 1,709 in 2013.

» Unit shortage means longer waits for people with disabilities

Hyun’s Story

Hyun* and his wife have been waiting for RGI housing in Toronto for nearly four years. Because of a disability, Hyun’s wife needs assistance with daily tasks. But since they couldn’t afford full-time care, Hyun, who is a drywaller by trade, had to stop working to take care of her.

Hyun is currently struggling to afford the monthly rent of $1,000 for their Scarborough apartment on disability benefits alone. Moreover, their current apartment cannot accommodate his wife’s medical needs; the bathroom, for example, is too small to accommodate her walker.

When asked about his wait for housing, Hyun is not optimistic. “We could be waiting for 15 years by the time we get in,” he says. “I’m up against a brick wall: I’m doing everything I can think of, and that’s not enough. Do you have to be dying to get affordable housing in this city?”

The longer wait for modified units is frequently attributed to the limited number of units and a lack of funding for service managers to renovate other homes that are available. In other cases, the modified units that become available may not meet the specific needs of applicants waiting for housing.

13 ONPHA

Breakdown of Active Households on Waiting Lists by Applicant

Status (%), 2014

SPP 2.5% Local Priority2.3%

Chronological95.1%

In 2014, more than 95 per cent of housing applicants were waiting on a first-come, first-served basis. The rest of the applicants have priority status, which prioritizes their application over the applications of chronological applicants. The provincial government requires the prioritization of applications from households that are fleeing domestic violence. In 2014, there were 3,932 such applicants on housing waiting lists, down from 4,130 households in 2013.

Other prioritized categories for applicants are also possible. In the Ontario Housing Policy Statement, the provincial government required that service managers create 10-year housing and homelessness plans based on a “housing first” approach22. In response, 12 service managers reported prioritizing homeless applicants in 2014 and four more23 are considering doing so as well.

In the end, applicants with priority and chronological applicants are waiting for the same housing units. The prioritization of applicants can result in longer wait times for those without priority. In 2014, less than five per cent of households on the waiting list had priority. But, priority households received more than 30 per cent of the housing units that become available.

» Even “priority” applicants face delays

22. Under the Housing Services Act, service managers are allowed to create local priority categories to address pressing needs in their communities. 23. The City of Kawartha Lakes, the District of Sault Ste. Marie Social Services Administration Board, the City of Stratford, and the District of Timiskaming

Social Services Administration Board reported considering adding a homeless priority category to their RGI applications.

It is important to note that even with priority status, applicants face long wait times. The average wait time in Ontario for an applicant fleeing domestic violence was more than eight months, and, in some communities, more than 18 months. Other priority households, such as people experiencing homelessness, waited an average of one year before securing a unit. Considering that these applicants are given priority because they are vulnerable and at-risk, it is safe to say that the current waiting list system is not effectively responding to their immediate need for safe and affordable housing.

Tomas’ Story

Tomas,* who recently celebrated his 44th birthday, has been on the waiting list in Toronto for over 4 years. Tomas learned about the waiting list for RGI housing through his mental health caseworker. He is currently homeless. He’s able to sleep in shelters occasionally, and spends the rest of the time on the street.

Tomas has been told that his application for housing will be reviewed again in a year, but there’s no promises that anything will be available. When asked what he’d like to see change about the waiting list system, his answer is simple: “There needs to be more funding, so that they can make more places.”


In 2014, 17,505 applicant households received housing – a 1.2 per cent decrease from 2013. 2014 is the fourth year in a row that the number of applicant households housed from the waiting list has declined.

At the same time, approximately three per cent fewer applications were cancelled24 and 6.4 per cent fewer households applied in 2014 than in 2013. While the number of new applications is dropping to pre-recession levels, any celebration is premature.

» Waiting list movement has stalledIn 2014, only about six per cent of Ontario’s RGI

housing units were vacated. Given the low rate of turnover, a chronological applicant who joined the waiting list last year will wait longer than the households who were housed that year.

A household that joined the waiting list in 2014 will face an average wait of five years for housing, but depending on the area may wait as long as 13 years25.

» Service managers are working to help residents in their communities

As waiting lists increase, service managers have implemented innovative new programs to assist households while they wait and improve housing stability for residents in their communities. In last year’s Waiting List Report we profiled the initiatives of a number of service managers, all of which have continued to benefit households in 201426.

In 2014, 22 service managers confirmed that they had provided financial assistance to low-income households that are at the top of the housing waiting list or are expected to have a long wait for housing. Generally, this assistance was made possible because of federal-provincial housing programs, like the Investment in Affordable Housing (IAH) Program.

Regional Municipality of Halton The municipality has emerged as a leader in addressing residents’ affordability challenges, and reducing the number of households that

remain on the waiting list. In 2014, the Halton In-situ Program was created, which provides a permanent, portable housing allowance to households on the waiting list. Halton partnered with the Province to administer the program, which provides families with greater flexibility by allowing them to remain in their current housing or find another unit in the private market. Households must meet certain criteria to be eligible, and the monthly allowance is based on household income level and rent amount. Because households can receive the allowance for as long as they continue to meet the criteria, these residents are considered “housed” and are therefore removed from Halton’s RGI waiting list.

The Halton In-situ Program has transformed waiting list management and has provided clients on Halton Region’s waiting list with an element of choice in their housing tenure. It also meets the needs of Halton residents in a more cost effective

24. Since 2013, ONPHA has defined “cancelled” applications as only those applications that cannot be reactivated (rather than applications that are stalled but may be reactivated if more information is provided).

25. Waiting times for chronological households applying in 2014 were estimated by calculating how many years it would take for these households to be housed by considering how many chronological households would be housed each year into the future, and how many applications from chronological households with earlier application dates than those applying in 2014 would be cancelled each year. The above was calculated based on the following assumptions: 1. the figures for each of the following are assumed to be consistent with 2014 figures into the future: number of chronological households housed; number of cancelled chronological applications; number of priority applications. 2. Cancelled applications are assumed to be equally distributed by application date.

26. Service managers that were highlighted included the City of Toronto, the Regional Municipality of Peel, the District of Cochrane Social Services Administration Board, the City of London, the City of Brantford, the Regional Municipality of Niagara, the County of Simcoe and the District of Timiskaming Social Services Administration Board.

A household that joined the waiting list in 2014 will face an average wait of five years for housing, but depending on the area may wait as long as 13 years.

http://www.onpha.on.ca/onpha/web/Policyandresearch/Waiting_lists_survey_2014/Content/PolicyAndResearch/Waiting_Lists_Survey_2014/Waiting_Lists_Survey_2014.aspx

http://www.onpha.on.ca/onpha/web/Policyandresearch/Waiting_lists_survey_2014/Content/PolicyAndResearch/Waiting_Lists_Survey_2014/Waiting_Lists_Survey_2014.aspx

15 ONPHA

Families36%

Breakdown of new applications by household type (%), 2014

Seniors23%Single

adults and couples

41%

Breakdown of households housed by applicant status (%), 2014

Local Priority

11%

SPP25%

Chronological64%

manner than traditional waiting list placement.

Halton also developed Halton Housing Help, an integrated program that provides information and supports to local residents and landlords. The program includes free rental listings, a dedicated telephone support service, and one-on-one support for vulnerable clients to assist them in overcoming traditional impediments to successful tenancies in the private market. Moreover, in an effort to proactively keep Halton residents housed, the Housing Stability Team was created, which responds to clients facing housing challenges within 48 hours.

City of Kingston In Kingston, applicants at the top of the waiting list are offered a rent supplement that will allow them to afford their current home in the private

Sarah’s Story

Sarah* came to Canada over 20 years ago from Israel to start a family. For two decades, she was caught in an abusive marriage. When she was finally able to leave, she found that she could not afford average rents in Toronto, despite working multiple jobs. At the time, Sarah did not know about shelters for victims of domestic violence, or about the waiting list for RGI housing. She finally found a bachelor apartment in her price range, but was force to move again when her landlord raised the rent.

After several years, Sarah learned about the waiting list through a community agency. Just last November, Sarah secured an RGI unit in a quiet rental community. She describes her new home as a “sanctuary”: “It’s only three months I’ve been living here, but I feel free. Life was very bitter for a long time, but it is sweet now.”

market. The rent supplement is offered for a period of up to eight years. As a condition of receiving the subsidy the household is removed from the waiting list, but once they have secured the subsidy they can register for the waiting list again, and if they still qualify receive a new chronological date.

Thunder Bay and Manitoulin-Sudbury DSSABsSimilarly, Thunder Bay has created a Housing Security Fund, which offers households financial assistance to remain in their current homes or to secure new private market housing so that they will not have to join the waiting list. Meanwhile, the Manitoulin-Sudbury District Social Services Administration Board has implemented a Direct Shelter Subsidy program, which provides Ontario Works (OW) recipients with up to $200 per month in additional income to enable them to find housing.


For the Ontario government, reducing child and youth poverty, supporting victims of domestic violence and ending homelessness are top priorities28. At the federal level, job growth and infrastructure development have dominated the policy agenda29. According to recent evidence, affordable housing is an important government investment that makes economic sense30. Senior levels of government will not be able to meet the above goals unless Ontarians have stable and affordable homes in which to grow and thrive.

The upcoming federal election provides an opportunity to deliver this message straight to Ottawa. Sustainable funding for affordable housing from all levels of government is necessary in order to build a strong economy, vibrant communities and a prosperous nation of which we can all be proud.

Since ONPHA began reporting waiting list data in 2004, the number of people waiting for affordable housing in Ontario has grown by more than 40,000 households. If current trends continue, waiting lists will increase at an even faster rate over the next decade.

In this report we profiled households that have secured affordable housing from the waiting list and the powerful impact it has had on their lives. We also shared the stories of people who are stuck on waiting lists and continue to struggle to meet their most basic needs. With the average food bank visitor in Ontario spending 71 per cent of their income on housing costs27, it is clear that investing in affordable housing is the key to helping households lead healthy, happy and productive lives.

CONCLUSION

27. Ontario Association of Food Banks, Going Hungry to Pay the Bills: The Root Causes behind the Pervasive Cycle of Poverty in Ontario, Hunger Report (2014).

28. See Realizing Our Potential: Ontario’s Poverty Reduction Strategy 2014-2019 (2014); It’s Never Okay: An Action Plan to Stop Sexual Violence and Harassment (2015); “News Release: Ontario Allocated $587 Million to Help End Homelessness,” Newsroom (30 March 2015).

29. Government of Canada, “Seizing Canada’s Moment: Prosperity and Opportunity in an Uncertain World,” Speech from the Throne (2013); “PM Announces New Infrastructure Investments across Canada,” News Release (24 November 2014).

30. The recently-released Economic Impact Study of Toronto Community Housing stock revealed that federal and provincial investment in capital repairs would generate 14,000 jobs each year for the first 10 years of TCH’s revitalization plan, as well as attracting $5 billion in private investment “multiplier” effects for communities. Governments will also save $3.8 billion in avoided healthcare costs and experience a 15 per cent decrease in neighbourhood crime. By contrast, if no investments in affordable housing are made in Toronto, homelessness will double by the year 2024. See: Canadian Centre for Economic Analysis, Socio-Economic Analysis: Value of Toronto Community Housing’s 10 Year Capital Investment Plan and Revitalization (March 2015); Notes for remarks by Greg Spearn, Toronto Community Housing, “The Business Case for Investing in Social Housing,” at the Toronto Region Board of Trade (March 31, 2015).

17 ONPHA

APPENDIX A:METHODOLOGY

The 20`5 ONPHA Waiting Lists Survey (“the survey”) was distributed to centralized waiting list administrators in Ontario’s 47 Consolidated Municipal Service Manager (“service manager”) areas. Vink Consulting conducted the survey, and analyzed the results on behalf of ONPHA. The surveys were distributed in December 2014.

Respondents were asked questions about the administration of their rent-geared-to-income (RGI) housing waiting list and about the applicants on that list as of December 31, 2014. Areas of interest included the:• number of active applicants waiting for RGI

housing;• types of households waiting for RGI housing;• status of eligible applicants;• number of new applications received and

household type;• number of households housed and household

type; and• number of applications cancelled in 2014 and

household type.

Respondents were also asked:• how often applicants were contacted to

update their information and status;• what local priority categories, if any, they offer

and how they are treated; • whether or not their organization is considering

implementing a choice-based letting model for administering their waiting list;

• if wait times vary significantly within their service manager area depending on the community;

• if their area lacks enough modified units for people with disabilities, or lacks the financial resources to modify existing available units;

• if there were any challenges that might have affected their 2014 data;

• if, as a service manager, they have undertaken any new housing-based initiatives that will: » move households off the centralized

waiting list more quickly; » prevent new households from joining the

centralized waiting list; » provide households with a time-limited

or fixed amount housing benefit or assistance while they wait; and,

» collect information about how applicants meet their basic needs while waiting.

Instructions were provided to assist respondents in extracting the survey data using Microsoft Excel from YARDI and other software. The purpose of these guidelines is to ensure data consistency.

» About the 2015 ONPHA Waiting Lists Survey


Complete waiting list data was received from 43 of 47 service manager areas. The Kenora District Services Board and the District Municipality of Muskoka were unable to complete the survey this year due to changes in staffing and with their waiting list management systems. ONPHA did not receive a response this year from the City of

» Responses

The Appendix contains service manager-level information that is not contained in the body of this report.

To compensate for the absence of data from the Kenora District Services Board, the District Municipality of Muskoka, the City of Ottawa and the County of Oxford, Vink Consulting adjusted their totals from the previous year (and from 2013 figures published by the County of Oxford) for eligible applicants, new applicants, housed

» Data

Ottawa or from the County of Oxford, which also did not complete the survey last year.

Thirty-eight service managers completed the qualitative questions that were also included in the survey.

applicants, and cancelled applications based on each category’s overall change provincially from 2013 to 2014.

This year, service managers were also asked by ONPHA staff to verify their data submissions in March 2015. The purpose of this process was to ensure that no mistakes were made in data collection, as well as to capture any revisions that service managers had made to their data sets after initial submission.

19 ONPHA

Waiting list numbers as a proxy for the need for affordable housing RGI housing waiting lists are an imperfect measure of the need for affordable housing in Ontario. Waiting lists do not capture every Ontario household that would qualify for RGI housing assistance, only those who are aware that RGI housing is available, have chosen to apply, and have kept their application up-to-date.

RGI housing waiting lists also do not include applicants for other forms of housing assistance, such as supportive housing, affordable rental housing built under the Investment in Affordable Housing Program, or homeownership assistance available under the same program. It is also important to note that some households on RGI housing waiting lists are receiving a fixed-amount housing benefit assistance or time-limited RGI housing while they are on the waiting list.

Given these limitations, survey results should be viewed as only one indicator of the need for affordable housing in Ontario. Others, such as Core Housing Need and Persistent Core Housing Need, are also available.

Wait times vary within service manager areas A number of service managers noted that the overall average wait times for their service area may not be representative of the actual wait in certain parts of the region. For example, the City of Peterborough noted that wait times in the county are significantly lower than those in the city (an average wait of 2.33 years in the county, versus 11.66 years in the city). Similarly the County of Renfrew and the District of Parry Sound Social Services Administration Board noted that the average wait times for their regions can significantly underestimate the actual wait time in parts of their service area where demand is high and housing supply is limited.

» LimitationsVariabilityWaiting list management practices and technology vary widely between Ontario’s 47 service managers. There is also variability within and between some service managers’ portfolios.

The number of new applications reported is likely an underestimate as the data on the number of new applications for some service managers does not include households who applied and were housed in the same year due to the technology limitations of their waiting list management systems.

This variability, coupled with the absence of a shared database system and differences in human resource, financial, and technical capacity between service managers, makes it difficult to ensure direct comparability between areas31.

31. The definitions of applicant statuses such as “transfer”, “pending”, “cancelled”, “housed”, or “household” may vary between service managers and can impact comparison. Similarly, service managers may define “modified units” differently. Service manager categorization of applicants by household composition or size of unit can impact their ability to accurately report by household type. For example, if a service manager categorizes applicants by the size of the unit requested (and not the composition of the household), some respondents may be unable to separate couples without children from single adults because both household types are eligible for the same size of unit. In other instances, service managers may categorize childless couples in the family category, inflating the number of families reported.


APPENDIX B:GLOSSARY OF TERMS

may create additional rules, reserving every one in 10 RGI vacancies for households with Local Priority.

Chronological – Applicants who are ranked on the centralized waiting list based on their date of application.

Average Wait Times: For the purposes of this survey, wait times are calculated as the average length of time between the date of application and the date applicants received housing in 2014.

Cancelled Applications: For the purposes of this survey, household applications that have been cancelled in 2014 and cannot be reactivated. Applications may be cancelled by the applicant, or may be cancelled or made inactive by the service manager.

Consolidated Municipal Service Manager / District Social Services Administration Board: A Consolidated Municipal Service Manager, or “service manager”, is a designated municipality that is the service delivery agent for affordable and social housing and certain other programs within its area. Service managers may be upper-tier governments (regional or county) or may be cities. In the North (other than Greater Sudbury), District Social Services Administration Boards (DSSABs), bodies created through Provincial legislation, carry out service manager duties. Both are referred to in this report as “service managers.”

Active households: Households on waiting lists that have been deemed eligible for rent-geared-to-income (RGI) housing, including those currently “on offer” for a unit. Active households include households that have submitted new applications between January 1 and December 31, 2014, and households that have maintained their application by responding to any service manager requests for information.

Applicant: A household, consisting of one individual living alone or two or more individuals living together, that has applied for RGI housing.

Applicant Category/Status: Applicant status refers to categories used to rank applicants on centralized waiting lists. There are three main categories:

Special Priority Policy (SPP) – Legislated first under the Social Housing Reform Act and now under the Housing Services Act, the SPP gives priority status to households with a member who has been a victim of domestic violence.

Local Priority – Service managers are allowed to create Local Priority categories for RGI housing. These priority categories are based on local households that are in high need, such as households that are homeless, newcomers, or youth, or require a medical transfer, as well as other needs. Applicants with Local Priority status are housed after SPP applicants, but before chronological applicants. In some cases, service managers

21 ONPHA

Core Housing Need: A household is in Core Housing Need if: • its current housing does not meet criteria of

affordability, suitability and/or adequacy, and • if it is under the income level at which it could

afford the average market rent of a suitable unit.

Eligible Applicants: Applicants that are recorded in a service manager’s database as “eligible,” “active” or “on offer.”

Housed Households: Households that were housed in social or RGI housing during 2014.

Household: An individual who lives alone or two or more persons who live together.

Household Type: Households are grouped into three types:

Senior – The criterion for senior households varies by service manager area and, in some cases, may also vary depending on the mandate of local seniors’ housing providers. While some areas or providers define seniors as 55 and over, most areas define senior households as 60 or 65 years of age and over. Households may be allowed to apply earlier (e.g. in their 59th year where criterion is 60) given wait times of over one year.

Adult Single and Couple – Households consisting of an individual or a couple eligible for a bachelor or one-bedroom unit that do not yet meet the criterion for seniors’ housing.

Families – A household with at least one child living in the same dwelling. Families are eligible for units with multiple bedrooms.

New applications: New applications received in 2014, which are deemed eligible.

Persistent Core Housing Need: A household that spends three or more continual years in Core Housing Need is said to be in Persistent Core Housing Need.

Rent-Geared-to-Income (RGI) Housing: RGI assistance refers to the financial assistance received by households which allows them to pay rent based on 30 per cent of their gross income. RGI housing is provided by non-profit housing providers, local housing corporations and co-operative housing corporations, and through rent supplements which subsidize market rents in nonprofits, co-ops, and private rentals.


APPENDIX C:SERVICE MANAGER LEVEL DATA

Table 1: Active households on RGI waiting lists as of December 31, 2014

Service ManagerActive HH

2014Active HH

2013Active HH

2012Active HH

2011Active HH

2010Active HH

2009Active HH

2008Active HH

2007Active HH

2006Active HH

2005Active HH

2004Active HH

2003Algoma 308 724 695 700 310 291 247 255 209 240 248 260 Brantford 1,104 1,147 947 899 877 907 1,233 1,257 1,022 1,232 971 1,415 Bruce 295 200 264 311 203 180 140 166 189 137 119 137 Chatham Kent 479 263 304 371 321 305 308 235 277 216 150 228 Cochrane 1,583 1,586 1,458 1,720 1,944 1,772 1,840 1,615 1,717 1,225 1,020 727 Cornwall 754 783 871 860 792 764 792 755 667 588 519 472 Dufferin 461 433 462 427 511 387 433 467 516 470 440 454 Durham 5,458 5,237 4,751 4,348 4,260 3,926 3,922 3,650 3,644 4,543 4,188 3,775 Grey County 406 490 653 795 679 741 713 630 652 652 656 588 Halton 3,906 4,179 3,398 3,153 2,140 1,931 1,888 1,906 2,054 1,606 1,702 2,333 Hamilton 5,654 5,635 4,762 6,062 5,364 5,045 4,166 3,904 3,817 4,375 4,863 4,362 Hastings 1,451 1,486 1,315 1,359 1,519 1,366 1,235 946 855 855 1,065 855 Huron 219 210 214 342 226 237 172 183 309 190 143 145 Kawartha Lakes 777 556 579 531 531 444 546 498 600 683 560 604 Kenora 381 373 358 451 382 546 452 621 494 499 640 712 Kingston 1,213 1,110 1,176 1,156 1,169 1,070 1,090 1,012 1,062 956 952 1,001 Lambton 324 342 466 537 508 529 453 483 434 403 378 265 Lanark 375 424 414 237 472 411 510 345 276 304 319 302 Leeds and Grenville

302 329 461 527 483 424 679 480 435 468 464 469

Lennox and Addington

426 418 373 304 407 224 427 572 731 644 489 439

London 2,807 2,341 2,172 3,090 4,037 4,265 3,852 3,377 3,440 3,963 3,735 4,451 Manitoulin-Sudbury

437 350 619 274 310 214 180 226 174 161 142 91

Muskoka 664 650 620 599 523 463 430 361 313 281 263 248 Niagara 5,772 6,016 5,831 5,567 5,543 4,611 4,247 4,264 4,743 4,201 4,049 3,870 Nipissing 1,185 1,068 1,032 1,028 980 1,057 987 923 900 1,114 1,088 992 Norfolk 361 282 266 271 280 277 279 186 297 272 304 405

Northumberland 325 273 353 285 202 212 230 251 279 238 248 277

Ottawa 10,312 10,089 9,717 10,097 10,502 10,235 9,692 9,370 10,055 9,922 10,516 11,461 Oxford 1,200 707 679 670 297 241 160 171 140 215 237 197 Parry Sound 350 413 387 374 374 430 382 417 385 331 341 335 Peel 11,998 12,630 12,850 12,853 15,341 14,436 13,328 13,564 12,389 14,101 14,361 13,457 Peterborough 1,503 1,501 1,550 1,697 1,589 1,468 1,142 1,495 1,488 1,502 1,502 1,539 Prescott and Russell

537 543 511 1,055 430 388 407 324 403 365 244 318

Rainy River 244 79 113 110 29 37 24 44 52 52 76 71 Renfrew 814 811 911 877 699 680 560 552 619 569 551 620 Sault Ste. Marie 1,274 1,125 1,168 1,103 1,049 1,063 983 597 473 459 374 374 Simcoe 2,921 2,800 2,725 2,482 2,665 3,245 3,224 3,317 3,048 2,479 2,160 2,489 Stratford 175 188 149 123 147 182 155 133 188 185 189 267 St. Thomas 312 302 218 300 267 272 245 222 185 254 287 231 Sudbury 1,068 1,021 1,476 1,885 1,941 1,396 2,154 1,878 1,634 1,357 1,312 1,230 Thunder Bay 1,340 1,185 1,790 1,420 1,226 1,127 610 446 640 620 813 441 Timiskaming 410 529 526 459 565 314 457 266 276 310 182 170 Toronto 78,392 77,109 72,696 69,342 66,460 60,197 52,257 49,468 47,930 48,041 49,329 50,218 Waterloo 2,962 2,719 3,162 3,280 2,737 3,015 3,100 3,235 3,448 2,529 3,238 3,454 Wellington 1,242 1,333 1,147 1,320 1,261 1,531 1,280 1,370 896 989 1,584 2,018 Windsor 2,775 2,500 2,360 2,019 1,899 2,094 1,809 2,031 2,031 2,168 2,007 1,747 York 11,455 10,580 9,496 8,688 7,626 6,685 5,833 5,564 5,340 5,462 5,767 5,589 Totals 168,711 165,069 158,445 156,358 152,077 141,635 129,253 124,032 121,726 122,426 124,785 126,103 Change from Previous Year

2.2% 4.2% 1.3% 2.8% 7.4% 9.6% 4.2% 1.9% -0.6% -1.9% -1.0% n/a

* In this and following tables, data is based on responses from 43 of 47 Service Managers, with substitutions calculated for Kenora, Muskoka, Ottawa, whose 2013 figures were inflated based on the province-wide rate of waiting list growth from 2013 to 2014. The County of Oxford’s 2014 figures were based on figures published by the County in November 2013.

23 ONPHA

Table 2: Proportion of total active households on Ontario RGI waiting lists, and per cent change from previous year

Service Manager% of Total Active HH

% Change 2013 to

2014

% of Total Active HH

% Change 2012 to

2013


% Change 2011 to

2012


% Change 2010 to

2011

% Change 2009 to

2010

Algoma 0.2% -59.8% 0.4% 0.4% -0.7% 0.4% 125.8% 6.5%

Brantford 0.7% -4.5% 0.7% 21.1% 0.6% 5.3% 0.6% 2.5% -3.3%

Bruce 0.2% 36.0% 0.1% -24.2% 0.2% -15.1% 0.2% 53.2% 12.8%

Chatham Kent 0.3% 71.1% 0.2% -13.5% 0.2% -18.1% 0.2% 15.6% 5.2%

Cochrane 0.9% -0.2% 1.0% 8.8% 0.9% -15.2% 1.1% -11.5% 9.7%

Cornwall 0.4% -3.3% 0.5% -10.1% 0.5% 1.3% 0.6% 8.6% 3.7%

Dufferin 0.3% 6.1% 0.3% -6.3% 0.3% 8.2% 0.3% -16.4% 32.0%

Durham 3.2% 4.7% 3.2% 10.2% 3.0% 9.3% 2.8% 2.1% 8.5%

Grey County 0.2% -12.9% 0.3% -25.0% 0.4% -17.9% 0.5% 17.1% -8.4%

Halton 2.3% -8.0% 2.5% 23.0% 2.1% 7.8% 2.0% 47.3% 10.8%

Hamilton 3.4% 0.4% 3.4% 18.3% 3.0% -21.4% 3.9% 13.0% 6.3%

Hastings 0.9% -2.7% 0.9% 13.0% 0.8% -3.2% 0.9% -10.5% 11.2%

Huron 0.1% 4.2% 0.1% -1.9% 0.1% -37.4% 0.2% 51.3% -4.6%

Kawartha Lakes 0.5% 38.2% 0.3% -4.0% 0.4% 9.0% 0.3% 0.0% 19.6%

Kenora 0.2% 2.3% 0.2% 4.1% 0.2% -20.6% 0.3% 18.1% -30.0%

Kingston 0.7% 8.8% 0.7% -5.6% 0.7% 1.7% 0.7% -1.1% 9.3%

Lambton 0.2% -3.9% 0.2% -26.6% 0.3% -13.2% 0.3% 5.7% -4.0%

Lanark 0.2% -11.8% 0.3% 2.4% 0.3% 74.7% 0.2% -49.8% 14.8%Leeds and Grenville

0.2% -5.9% 0.2% -28.6% 0.3% -12.5% 0.3% 9.1% 13.9%


0.3% 2.1% 0.3% 12.1% 0.2% 22.7% 0.2% -25.3% 81.7%

London 1.7% 21.5% 1.4% 7.8% 1.4% -29.7% 2.0% -23.5% -5.3%Manitoulin-Sudbury

0.3% 14.1% 0.2% -43.5% 0.4% 125.9% 0.2% -11.6% 44.9%

Muskoka 0.4% 2.3% 0.4% 4.8% 0.4% 3.5% 0.4% 14.5% 13.0%

Niagara 3.4% -4.2% 3.6% 3.2% 3.7% 4.7% 3.6% 0.4% 20.2%

Nipissing 0.7% 11.3% 0.6% 3.5% 0.7% 0.4% 0.7% 4.9% -7.3%

Norfolk 0.2% 29.7% 0.2% 6.0% 0.2% -1.8% 0.2% -3.2% 1.1%

Northumberland 0.2% 14.7% 0.2% -22.7% 0.2% 23.9% 0.2% 41.1% -4.7%

Ottawa 6.1% 2.3% 6.1% 3.8% 6.1% -3.8% 6.5% -3.9% 2.6%

Oxford 0.7% 72.6% 0.4% 4.1% 0.4% 1.3% 0.4% 125.6% 23.2%

Parry Sound 0.2% -16.3% 0.3% 6.7% 0.2% 3.5% 0.2% 0.0% -13.0%

Peel 7.1% -4.9% 7.7% -1.7% 8.1% 0.0% 8.2% -16.2% 6.3%

Peterborough 0.9% 0.1% 0.9% -3.2% 1.0% -8.7% 1.1% 6.8% 8.2%Prescott and Russell

0.3% -1.2% 0.3% 6.3% 0.3% -51.6% 0.7% 145.3% 10.8%

Rainy River 0.1% 146.0% 0.0% -30.1% 0.1% 2.7% 0.1% 279.3% -21.6%

Renfrew 0.5% 0.3% 0.5% -11.0% 0.6% 3.9% 0.6% 25.5% 2.8%

Sault Ste. Marie 0.8% 12.8% 0.7% -3.7% 0.7% 5.9% 0.7% 5.1% -1.3%

Simcoe 1.7% 4.4% 1.7% 2.8% 1.7% 9.8% 1.6% -6.9% -17.9%

Stratford 0.1% -8.7% 0.1% 26.2% 0.1% 21.1% 0.1% -16.3% -19.2%

St. Thomas 0.2% 4.6% 0.2% 38.5% 0.1% -27.3% 0.2% 12.4% -1.8%

Sudbury 0.6% 3.2% 0.6% -30.8% 0.9% -21.7% 1.2% -2.9% 39.0%

Thunder Bay 0.8% 8.7% 0.7% -33.8% 1.1% 26.1% 0.9% 15.8% 8.8%

Timiskaming 0.2% -22.6% 0.3% 0.6% 0.3% 14.6% 0.3% -18.8% 79.9%

Toronto 46.5% 1.8% 46.7% 6.1% 45.9% 4.8% 44.3% 4.3% 10.4%

Waterloo 1.8% 7.7% 1.6% -14.0% 2.0% -3.6% 2.1% 19.8% -9.2%

Wellington 0.7% -7.9% 0.8% 16.2% 0.7% -13.1% 0.8% 4.7% -17.6%

Windsor 1.6% 11.7% 1.5% 5.9% 1.5% 16.9% 1.3% 6.3% -9.3%

York 6.8% 9.2% 6.4% 11.4% 6.0% 9.3% 5.6% 13.9% 14.1%

Totals 100.0% 2.2% 100.0% 4.2% 100.0% 1.3% 100.0% 2.8% 7.4%


Table 3: Applicant status of active households as of December 31, 2014

Service ManagerSpecial

Priority Policy (SPP)

Local Priority Chronological ModifiedOffers a

Local Priority

Special Priority

Policy (SPP)

Local Priority

Algoma 20 288 N 0.38 0.00

Brantford 31 1073 38 N 0.50 N/A

Bruce 11 177 N/A N 0.18 0.00

Chatham Kent 3 24 246 3 Y 0.16 0.41

Cochrane 5 32 1546 N/A Y 0.79 1.96

Cornwall 24 730 5 N 0.30 N/A

Dufferin 23 438 4 N 0.77 0.00

Durham 322 3 5133 60 Y 1.23 0.93

Grey County 8 398 3 N 0.29 N/A

Halton 93 375 3439 93 Y 0.60 2.00

Hamilton 202 204 5248 97 Y 0.70 1.20

Hastings 30 151 1270 48 Y 0.90 1.12

Huron 6 0 213 3 N 0.50 N/A

Kawartha Lakes 14 79 684 18 Y 0.54 2.26

Kenora

Kingston 56 65 1092 18 Y 0.67 0.90

Lambton 6 N/A 318 11 N 0.35 N/A

Lanark 29 0 346 17 N 0.47 N/A

Leeds and Grenville

4 0 298 0 N 0.20 N/A


26 N/A 400 2 N 0.20 N/A

London 41 663 2103 32 Y 0.47 0.95

Manitoulin-Sudbury

6 58 373 2 Y 0.35 1.16

Muskoka 15 117 533 3

Niagara 115 240 4816 N/A Y 0.92 1.50

Nipissing 45 56 1084 N/A Y 0.97 1.83

Norfolk 31 N/A 330 10 N 0.38 N/A

Northumberland 3 0 322 13 N 0.59 N/A

Ottawa 109 1131 9077 165

Oxford

Parry Sound 2 0 348 2 N 0.50 N/A

Peel 560 30 11408 121 Y 1.40 0.90

Peterborough 24 0 1479 116 N 0.65 N/A

Prescott and Russell

15 13 509 6 N 0.91 N/A

Rainy River 8 0 236 2 N 0.23 N/A

Renfrew 33 N/A 781 N/A N 0.40 N/A

Sault Ste. Marie 96 0 1468 18 Y 0.08 0.00

Simcoe 127 N/A 2794 21 N 0.75 N/A

Stratford 6 5 164 0 Y 0.22 0.20

St. Thomas 13 6 293 12 Y 0.42 0.34

Sudbury 4 1 1063 19 Y 0.18 0.27

Thunder Bay 13 72 1255 21 Y 0.66 1.38

Timiskaming 0 0 410 3 N 0.04 N/A

Toronto 1570 535 76287 586 Y 0.70 0.80

Waterloo 23 174 2765 36 Y 0.25 0.52

Wellington 36 12 1194 25 Y 0.30 0.60

Windsor 45 255 2475 2 Y 0.19 0.21

York 78 24 11353 106 Y 1.55 4.43

Totals 3932 4325 158257 1741 23

Active Households by Applicant StatusAverage Wait Time in

Years

* Figures are missing for Kenora and Oxford due to incomplete information.

25 ONPHA

Table 4: Household type of active households as of December 31, 2014

Service Manager Seniors FamiliesSingle Adults and Couples

Seniors FamiliesSingle

Adults and Couples

Algoma 91 90 127 1.04 0.90 1.00

Brantford 263 369 472 1.67 1.25 1.58

Bruce 116 61 118 1.12 0.50 0.71

Chatham Kent 203 100 176 1.91 0.52 2.48

Cochrane 623 495 465 3.16 1.24 3.37

Cornwall 175 199 380 1.20 1.20 2.70

Dufferin 151 103 207 2.90 3.50 3.10

Durham 925 2360 2173 4.03 5.28 5.33

Grey County 99 80 227 1.82 1.00 1.61

Halton 1215 1608 1083 2.50 4.30 5.00

Hamilton 591 2493 2564 2.60 4.00 2.40

Hastings 206 458 787 1.51 2.62 6.00

Huron 32 70 117 1.00 1.00 2.50

Kawartha Lakes 210 171 396 2.22 2.08 2.68

Kenora

Kingston 137 354 722 1.35 1.29 3.87

Lambton 35 42 247 0.41 0.54 1.30

Lanark 65 82 228 3.40 1.10 2.30

Leeds and Grenville

101 61 140 1.68 0.48 0.98


35 114 277 3.20 1.40 1.40

London 265 1002 1540 1.11 1.63 1.77

Manitoulin-Sudbury

191 93 153 2.42 0.98 0.59

Muskoka 128 187 350

Niagara 2253 1788 1731 4.00 5.50 9.00

Nipissing 387 308 490 1.64 1.10 1.98

Norfolk 94 71 196 1.50 0.75 4.50

Northumberland 79 73 173 1.71 1.58 1.64

Ottawa 2133 3750 4434

Oxford

Parry Sound 68 86 196 4.10 3.10 3.30

Peel 3100 5999 2899 4.90 5.70 5.20

Peterborough 320 313 870 5.33 2.50 3.10


165 161 211 1.42 1.11 0.90

Rainy River 44 84 116 0.25 0.60 0.76

Renfrew 212 222 380 2.91 1.60 3.00

Sault Ste. Marie 193 359 722 1.50 0.75 1.50

Simcoe 938 740 1243 3.90 3.10 4.10

Stratford 21 49 105 0.08 0.38 0.53

St. Thomas 41 119 152 1.27 1.13 2.04

Sudbury 149 147 772 3.24 0.57 2.10

Thunder Bay 172 379 789 1.19 1.48 1.14

Timiskaming 74 52 284 2.93 0.54 1.75

Toronto 26403 23398 28591 5.00 8.40 6.50

Waterloo 655 1281 1026 2.44 2.94 4.19

Wellington 210 465 567 1.90 1.30 1.90

Windsor 384 1046 1345 1.56 1.56 1.83

York 6343 2820 2292 6.44 6.73 8.34

Totals 50295 54302 62533

Average Wait Time in YearsActive Households by Household Type

* Figures are missing for Kenora and Oxford due to incomplete information.


Table 5: Households housed, new and cancelled applications January 1 – December 31, 2014

Service Manager HousedNew

ApplicationsCancelled

Applications

Algoma 99 241 31

Brantford 236 1047 775

Bruce 111 360 98

Chatham Kent 197 826 289

Cochrane 311 916 513

Cornwall 231 433 378

Dufferin 87 252 297

Durham 275 1662 1245

Grey County 190 497 353

Halton 375 2299 2197

Hamilton 906 3117 345

Hastings 305 560 377

Huron 69 243 129

Kawartha Lakes 133 420 153

Kenora 164 200 231

Kingston 183 594 192

Lambton 208 179 135

Lanark 84 131 130

Leeds and Grenville

175 520 340


93 278 199

London 744 1276 665

Manitoulin-Sudbury

47 218 97

Muskoka 68 217 219

Niagara 663 2084 1673

Nipissing 167 724 538

Norfolk 141 304 89

Northumberland 93 203 18

Ottawa 1879 4635 3113

Oxford 157 827 242

Parry Sound 30 125 93

Peel 1506 3451 3995

Peterborough 147 763 487


124 319 199

Rainy River 74 84 28

Renfrew 125 180 157

Sault Ste. Marie 344 851 485

Simcoe 312 1523 1061

Stratford 215 339 127

St. Thomas 147 269 76

Sudbury 467 876 446

Thunder Bay 312 531 241

Timiskaming 86 128 334

Toronto 3122 13584 9432

Waterloo 728 1919 1427

Wellington 350 1057 811

Windsor 714 2118 1258

York 312 2529 1728

Totals 17505 55908 37446

Number of Households

27 ONPHA

Table 6: Chronological waiting times, as of December 31, 2014

Service ManagerChronological

Wait timeAlgoma 0.96Brantford 2.75Bruce 0.83Chatham Kent 1.10Cochrane 2.30Cornwall 1.30Dufferin 3.20Durham 4.59Grey County 1.50Halton 4.00Hamilton 2.90Hastings 2.24Huron N/AKawartha Lakes 2.37KenoraKingston 1.48Lambton 0.90Lanark 1.70Leeds and Grenville

1.45


1.90

London 1.56Manitoulin-Sudbury

0.80

Muskoka 4.17Niagara 6.00Nipissing 1.49Norfolk 2.00

Northumberland 1.64

Ottawa 4.96OxfordParry Sound 3.40Peel 5.30Peterborough 3.63Prescott and Russell

1.23

Rainy River 0.60Renfrew 2.10Sault Ste. Marie 1.50Simcoe 3.60Stratford 0.45St. Thomas 1.89Sudbury 1.23Thunder Bay 1.28Timiskaming 1.61Toronto 7.00Waterloo 3.23Wellington 1.70Windsor 1.74York 6.55

* Wait times are not available for Kenora due to several years of incomplete waiting list surveys.

* Wait times are not available for Oxford due to several years of incomplete waiting list surveys.

* Due to incomplete information from the Service Manager (Ottawa), these wait times are assumed to be consistent with 2013 data.


Table 7: Responses

QuestionNumber of Responses

in 2014

Number of Responses

in 2013

Number of Responses

in 2012

Number of Responses

in 2011Question

Number of Responses

in 2014

Number of Responses

in 2013

Number of Responses

in 2012

Number of Responses

in 2011

Presence of Local Priorities

22 27 32 26

Total Eligible Active Households

43 44 45 47Total Cancelled Applications

43 44 45 46

Senior Active Households

43 44 45 47Cancelled Senior Applications

43 43 41 38

Family Active Households

43 44 n/aHoused Family Applicants

43 43 n/a

Childless Couples and Non-Senior Single Active Households

43 44 n/a

Housed Childless Couples and Non-Senior Single Applicants

43 43 n/a

SPP Active Households

43 44 45 44Cancelled SPP Applications

42 40 36 36

Local Priority Active Households

15 24 27 23Cancelled Local Priority Applications

14 24 22 20

Modified Active Households

36 34 29 n/aCancelled Modified Applications

36 32 18 n/a

Chronological Active Households

39 44 41 44Cancelled Chronological Applications

40 35 36

Total New Applicants 43 45 45 44 All Housed Applicants 42 42 36 45

New Senior Applicants

43 45 41 41 SPP 43 43 44 40

New Family Applicants

43 45 n/a Local Priority 20 28 22

New Childless Couples and Non-Senior Single Applicants

43 45 n/a Seniors 43 43 44 38

New SPP Applicants 42 43 43 41 Families 43 43 n/a

New Local Priority Applicants

14 23 26 20Childless Couples and Non-Senior Singles

43 33 n/a

New Modified Applicants

36 33 24 n/a

New Chronological Applicants

39 43 37 38

Total Applicants Housed

43 44 45 46

Housed Senior Applicants

43 44 45 44

Housed Family Applicants

43 44 n/a

Housed Childless Couples and Non-Senior Single Applicants

43 44 n/a

Housed SPP Applicants

43 44 45 45

Housed Local Priority Applicants

15 25 28 25

Housed Modified Applicants

36 33 24 n/a

Housed Chronological Applicants

39 44 40 44

Active Households

New Applicants

Applicants Housed

Cancelled Applications

Wait Times

29 ONPHA

Table 8: Per cent of households in each service manager area currently on the area’s RGI waiting list

Service ManagerTotal Households

(2011)

Active Households

on WL

% of Households

on WLAlgoma 13,505 308 2%Brantford 48,600 1,104 2%Bruce 24,790 295 1%Chatham Kent 40,085 479 1%Cochrane 32,060 1,583 5%Cornwall 43,520 754 2%Dufferin 18,930 461 2%Durham 204,300 5,458 3%Grey County 34,835 406 1%Halton 171,940 3,906 2%Hamilton 194,335 5,654 3%Hastings 51,945 1,451 3%Huron 21,170 219 1%Kawartha Lakes 34,835 777 2%Kenora 17,600 381 2%Kingston 59,395 1,213 2%Lambton 48,925 324 1%Lanark 25,430 375 1%Leeds and Grenville

38,975 302 1%


15,360 426 3%

London 25,255 2,807 11%Manitoulin-Sudbury

11,915 437 4%

Muskoka 22,505 664 3%Niagara 167,615 5,772 3%Nipissing 33,855 1,185 4%Norfolk 39,225 361 1%

Northumberland 31,025 325 1%

Ottawa 338,120 10,312 3%Oxford 38,935 1,200 3%Parry Sound 16,845 350 2%Peel 381,720 11,998 3%Peterborough 52,150 1,503 3%Prescott and Russell

31,240 537 2%

Rainy River 7,140 244 3%Renfrew 39,280 814 2%Sault Ste. Marie 34,335 1,274 4%Simcoe 160,700 2,921 2%Stratford 149,740 175 0%St. Thomas 30,965 312 1%Sudbury 388,785 1,068 0%Thunder Bay 59,165 1,340 2%Timiskaming 13,335 410 3%Toronto 970,900 78,392 8%Waterloo 183,215 2,962 2%Wellington 74,305 1,242 2%Windsor 144,270 2,775 2%York 305,870 11,455 4%

Map: Average waiting time for RGI housing, by service manager

Less than 1 year

1 to 2 years

2 to 3 years

3 to 5 years

More than 5 years

No data available

3.83years is the average length of time

an applicant who was housed in 2014 waited for RGI housing.

Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association489 College Street, Suite 400, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M6G 1A5

In Toronto: (416) 927-9144 Toll-free: 1-800-297-6660 Fax: (416) [email protected]

/ONPHA @ONPHAjm@ONPHA

Documents

2015 Waiting Lists Survey (2)